Disaster Averted After MTBM/Active Gas Main Collision - Utilizing Captivating Case Histories to Educate Stakeholders with Regards to Tunneling in Urban Environments

"Tunnel professionals should inform project stakeholders on the reality that tunnel projects are not 100 percent devoid of the need for excavations or public inconveniences during both design and construction phases. Competing stakeholder objectives to limit these disruptions must be weighed against the need to mitigate risks and to produce a constructible, operable and maintainable end product. Perhaps the approach we should take with stakeholders, also known as Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs), is sharing memorable case studies that bring to life the potential risks so often buried within lengthy risk registers. This paper provides a sobering case study describing what can occur if the presence and/or location of utilities and other obstructions are not fully understood due to restrictions placed on exploration or mining operations. In this instance, the Microtunnel Tunnel Boring Machine (MTBM) encountered a buried concrete structure, followed by rows of abandoned wood piles, before finally colliding with an active high-pressure gas main under a bustling coastal highway. Multiple stakeholders imposed tight logistical and other work restrictions, compounding the difficulties experienced during the drive. However, the difficulties were effectively managed through the project team’s proactive collaboration and communication with everyone involved. INTRODUCTION Some of the most important decisions that influence the ultimate success or failure of a project may not be made by design engineers. Instead, these decisions are often made by project stakeholders and third-party agencies. Tasked with protecting the best interests of their users, these agencies are cautious of potential impacts associated with project construction and subsequent use. Unfortunately, actions required (or restricted) by stakeholders often result in unwanted ripple effects that negatively affect the very users they are trying to protect. For example, a mandate limiting a shaft site to an unreasonable size may be intended to reduce local business impacts, but may actually increase impacts as more supply and truck hauling is required."